Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-14 16:53
vin wrote:
>> I'll agree, Tony, that the article is confusing, but to be fair to Jacobs, it's not meant to solve someone's problem completely.>>
Well, even if JACOBS didn't think he was solving someone's problem completely, the article is touted as being "THE DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT MOVES AIR IN AND OUT".
No-one could be clearer than I am that we cannot solve people's problems in detail on the Internet. I bang on and on, to the effect that we have to say what we CAN say -- namely, give descriptions of the actual physical circumstances of playing, plus metaphors that capture aspects of those physical circumstances -- and then leave the student, as I put it, RIGHTLY CONFUSED about which one of those metaphors may help them. They then get themselves UNCONFUSED by trying them out in practice, perhaps with feedback from us.
I posted the URL of the thread 'Rightly confused' in another thread, but here it is again:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=204498&t=204498
>> Funny enough, he said that of all the instruments, Jacobs had mentioned that he had the least success with clarinet players, although he did help several of Marcellus's students.>>
The clarinet, I've come to think, has one of the most varied degrees of resistance to blowing of all instruments, largely because the student is usually left in charge of the choice of reed and mouthpiece. I've usually dealt with someone who has positioned themselves uncomfortably at either extreme of resistance, by having them move their setup a bit closer to the middle ground.
I also tell them EITHER to think of the clarinet sound as a smooth tube, 'flowing' from low down in the belly, up through the windpipe and mouth, down the instrument and out to the audience (in case they have been used to a 'too closed' setup); OR to think of the clarinet sound as being made by the vibration of the air-column that is ALREADY inside the instrument (in case they have been used to a 'too open' setup).
Then, being in a situation where they're neither blowing their guts out nor going red in the face, they're in a position to appreciate the fundamental opposition that lies at the heart of excellent clarinet playing; namely, that of support -- AND, via the 'magic diminuendo', to come to terms with the mystery of why it is so difficult to describe (absence of afferent nerves in the diaphragm).
Jacobs is clearly concerned to avoid any use of this basic 'support' opposition. In fact, he labels it 'wrong' at every possible turn:
Quote:
"...support is never tight muscles, whether you’re silent or blowing, or in a diminuendo or crescendo."
Notice the pejorative effect of that word, 'tight'. We don't want 'tight', right?
But, what do we want: 'loose'???
This avoidance means that Jacobs cannot explain, or even countenance, the 'mystery'. He cannot even use the concept 'force':
Quote:
"Many people make the mistake of assuming that muscle contraction is what gives support. The blowing of the breath should be the support, not tension in the muscles of the body, but the movement of air as required by the embouchure or the reed.
“You go into the mechanics of movement and confusion arises; it’s a cause and effect relationship."
Of course, not having been able to explain the opposition, he is not in a position, AFTER THE EXPLANATION, to go on to say why we don't experience it (absence of afferent nerves in the diaphragm).
It's not OUR confusion, you see; it's HIS confusion.
The result of this is that in our profession we have to put up with a degree of doublethink that would have scientists roaring with laughter. WE have various different 'explanations' of this fundamental business of blowing, and you have to choose between them based on the credentials of the person giving them. (So, for example, if you think Arnold Jacobs is more eminent than me, you believe him.)
Even Ken Shaw, who makes as big a contribution as anyone here when it comes to the detail, shirks the issue. When asked how support works, he gives Jacobs's URLs, saying:
Quote:
I think about expanding my belly all the way around, including the sides and back. Kincaid said to do this and to push down rather than up.
Arnold Jacobs said you should never use the Valsalva (defecation) Maneuver, which creates slow, large-muscle movements that have nothing to do with blowing. See the links at http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=15660&t=15574 and http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=59103&t=58998.
Tony Pay says that support means balancing simultaneous inhaling and exhaling effort. See http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/04/000760.txt.
Why not say what it actually is? Why does something that responds to careful thought and experiment have to be fudged in this way?
Why can't we say that Jacobs doesn't make sense on the subject, period? And then go on to agree on something that DOES make sense??
Tony
|
|
Keepers
